11/7 case: Actions of ATS came under judicial scrutiny earlier too
MUMBAI: The 11/7 case is not the first time ATS's methods and conclusions have faced judicial scrutiny. In 2016, a special NIA court discharged 8 Muslim men who were labelled "terror accused" by ATS in 2006 Malegaon serial blasts case.
The presiding judge stated that these individuals, due to prior criminal records, were made scapegoats by ATS.
The credibility of ATS investigations faces another test next week with the impending verdict in 2008 Malegaon blast case; that killed 6 people and injured 100. Here, ATS named and arrested a dozen individuals. But NIA in its own probe in 2016 provided a clean chit to six accused, including ex-BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur.
Despite NIA's findings, ATS' original investigation largely prevailed, with NIA court ruling Thakur would indeed stand trial. However, the judge dropped charges invoked under MCOCA, charges initially applied by ATS but later revoked by NIA in its 2016 chargesheet. The NIA told court that during its investigation, "it was established no offence under MCOCA was attracted and hence confessional statements recorded by ATS under the Act were not relied upon.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
" Notably, NIA in its 2016 chargesheet accused ATS of planting RDX traces to frame accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit. While NIA let off Thakur and five others citing insufficient evidence, the judge refused to grant Thakur's plea for discharge. Over 30 witnesses turned hostile.
The history of probe into the 2006 Malegaon blasts further shows the pattern of judicial intervention. On Sept 8, 2006, 31 people died and 312 were hurt in 4 blasts in Malegaon.
ATS held 9 Muslim men, alleging they belonged to SIMI. In Dec 2006, it filed a 4,500-page chargesheet. But the case was handed over to CBI the same day after complaints from Malegaon residents that the nine were framed.
In 2011, the case was transferred to NIA after the CBI team indicated the role of right-wing outfits. On Nov 5, 2011, the special MCOCA court granted bail to the 9 accused. While 7 were released on bail, 2 remained in jail due to their alleged role in the 11/7 blasts.
In 2016, eight accused were discharged, and charges against one who died in 2015 were abated. Proceedings continued against four other accused, against whom NIA filed a chargesheet in 2013.
In the discharge order, special judge VV Patil stated that while ATS officers had no animosity with the accused, "as they discharged their public duty but in a wrong way, they may not be blamed for it." The judge expressed doubt that "it seemed highly impossible that the accused, who are from the Muslim community, would have decided to kill their own people to create disharmony in two communities, that too on a holy day of Shab-e-baraat.
" The judge further referenced NIA findings, which revealed an ATS witness, who previously claimed to have seen bomb preparation, retracted his statement, asserting it was taken under duress.
SC will hear Maha govt plea against 1 1 / 7 acquittals tomorrow
A day after Bombay high court quashed the conviction of all 12 accused found guilty a decade ago for the
2006 Mumbai train blasts
that killed 187 and injured 824 people, Supreme Court Tuesday agreed to hear on Thursday an appeal filed by Maharashtra govt challenging the acquittals.
State govt told the apex court that HC misdirected itself into trivialities and misread cogent evidence, leading to failure of justice.
Evidence had been meticulously collected by the prosecution to establish a chain, inculpating the accused for specific roles discharged by them to strike terror at the heart of the economic capital of India and wage a war against the country, govt added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
6 minutes ago
- Mint
'I will not speak in English': BJP's Nishikant Dubey on Tamil Nadu MPs request in LS amid glitch in translating system
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, on Tuesday, refused to speak in English, rejecting Tamil Nadu MPs request in Lok Sabha amid a glitch in translating system. He further claimed that the MPs 'only had a problem with Hindi.' The BJP MP made the comments in the Lok Sabha after after Tamil Nadu MPs requested Nishikant Dubey to speak in English following a a technical glitch in the translator (system) in the Lok Sabha. Responding to them, Dubey said "...It would have been better if you had asked me to speak in Tamil or Bengali. English is a foreign language, and your insistence on it reflects your mindset. Someone spoke in Bengali for half an hour, yet Tamil Nadu MPs didn't object. You only have a problem with Hindi. Congress and its allies don't like North Indians or Hindi. If you keep promoting English, we'll end up becoming England. 'Hum phir se gulaam ho jayenge' (We will become slaves again)..." During the Monsoon Session of the Parliament on Tuesday, several leaders launched scathing attacks on the government about India's Operation Sindoor in the aftermath of the brutal Pahalgam terror attack in April that killed 26 people. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said the launch of Operation Sindoor after the Pahalgam attack was a "symbol of the government's intelligence failure". Uttar Pradesh's former chief minister also said that India's foreign policy has 'completely collapsed,' while labelling China as a 'monster' that will "gobble up our (India's) land and market". "Who will take responsibility for the intelligence lapse in the Pahalgam attack?' Akhilesh Yadav said about the tragedy. Rahul Gandhi also took a swipe at the government, daring PM Modi to call 'Trump a liar,' referring to the POTUS's repeated claims of brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. While India has consistently denied these assertions, the US President continues to highlight his alleged role in de-escalating tensions between the two nations following the Pahalgam terror attack. Following Rahul Gandhi's claims, PM Modi while addressing the Lok Sabha, refuted claims made by US President Donald Trump regarding his role in halting India's military action against Pakistan. He said said no world leader asked India to stop its military action against Pakistan during 'Operation Sindoor' after four days of conflict in May in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Anti-narcotics crackdown continues in Mysuru as Excise Department carries out raids
The anti-narcotics crackdown in Mysuru following the seizure of large quantity of drugs from a makeshift tent near the Outer Ring Road in the city last Saturday continued even on Tuesday, with a team of officials from the Excise Department carrying out raids in parts of the city. Officials and personnel from the Excise Ranges of Mysuru subdivision and Home Guards under Mysuru urban district limits were part of the exercise carried out by Deputy Superintendent of Excise, Mysuru subdivision, according to an official statement here on Tuesday. As part of the exercise, patrolling by the Excise Department staff was conducted in Unnathinagar, Belavatta, Vande Matharam colony, Sai Baba colony, and Yellamma colony. 'No narcotic substances or excise-related violations were found during the raid,' the statement said. Meanwhile, the Excise Department officials conducted meetings with the residents of Vande Matharam colony, Sai Baba colony, and Yellamma colony to spread awareness among the public against the use and sale of narcotic substances and excise-related offences. Citizens were also urged to promptly inform the police department if they came across any illegal activities, the statement added. The raid by the Excise Department officials followed an elaborate search operation conducted by the city police under the leadership of City Police Commissioner Seema Latkar. Search operations were launched by the city police on Sunday after the Mumbai police, acting on a tip-off from an arrested drug peddler, raided an illegal drug manufacturing unit operating out of a makeshift tent behind a garage near the service road of the Outer Ring Road in Belavatta in the city on Saturday and seized a large quantity of drugs. The search operations by the city police covered garages, stockyards, hostels, as well as residences of persons against whom cases had earlier been registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in parts of Mandi Mohalla, N.R. Mohalla, Nazarbad, and Udayagiri police station limits. The unearthing of illegal drug manufacturing activity in Mysuru had not only shocked the residents of the city, but also sparked a political furore with the BJP leaders calling for stringent action against persons involved in the consumption and trade of narcotic drugs.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom
Harvard's standoff with the Trump administration tests the price of dissent in American academia. January 2025 wasn't supposed to read like the script of a dystopian campus drama. Yet, within days of Donald Trump's second inauguration, American higher education found itself back in the crosshairs. Harvard University, that centuries-old fortress of intellectual prestige, became the frontline in a clash not over grades or graduation rates, but over politics, power, and the weaponisation of federal authority. This isn't the same old 'Trump vs. Academia' skirmish we saw in 2017. This time, it's a stress test of whether a White House—any White House—can muscle its way into university governance, dictate the fate of billions in research funds, and even toy with student visas as leverage. If you think this saga only concerns one elite campus, think again. What happened to Harvard between January and July 2025 may well be the blueprint for how political control over universities could be asserted in America for years to come. January–February 2025: The opening moves On January 29, barely a week after the oath-taking ceremony, Trump signed Executive Order 14188. Following this, the Department of Justice established the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo At first glance, it seemed like another culture-war skirmish wrapped in civil rights language. But the fine print gave federal agencies unprecedented authority to probe universities, condition funding, and scrutinise so-called 'alien students' for ideological leanings. Harvard, along with dozens of institutions, received its first formal letter of 'concern' on February 27 from the Department of Justice, demanding meetings over alleged Title VI violations. For the uninitiated, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, or national origin. These weren't polite invitations. They were the opening salvo in a campaign that would escalate beyond anything seen before in federal–academic relations. The groundwork was laid: The administration now had a legal hook (civil rights), a moral shield (antisemitism), and a political target (elite universities often painted as 'woke havens'). Harvard was merely the first domino. March–April 2025: From review to retaliation On March 31, the Task Force formally launched a federal review into Harvard's use of billions in federal research grants, citing alleged failures to protect Jewish students. Boston University Radio (WBUR) and multiple outlets reported that this review was the precursor to unprecedented fiscal scrutiny and laid the foundation for later punitive actions. Just days later, the White House sent a letter demanding sweeping changes at Harvard: Dismantle DEI programs, overhaul governance, adopt 'merit-based' hiring, submit to viewpoint diversity audits, and revise admissions policies. In other words, the federal government wasn't just enforcing civil rights, it was trying to rewrite campus rules by diktat. Harvard refused. What followed was a fiscal guillotine. On April 14, $2.2 billion in federal research grants were frozen, along with $60 million in contracts. The message was blunt: Comply or watch your labs go dark. Trump's Truth Social post on—calling Harvard a 'JOKE' teaching 'Hate and Stupidity' and suggesting it lose tax-exempt status—wasn't just an online bluster. It was the President setting policy through grievance politics. By April 16, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem piled on, demanding detailed records on every international student, threatening SEVP decertification (loss of Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification), and cancelling an additional $2.7 million in grants. Harvard struck back legally on April 21, filing its first lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to challenge the funding freeze as unconstitutional. The complaint asked the federal court to vacate punitive actions and restore billions in research dollars. But the damage was already done: Projects stalled, faculty recruitment froze, and students with research assistantships were left dangling, unsure if their stipends would arrive next semester. May 2025: Visa warfare on campus If April was about money, May targeted people. On May 5, Trump signed a proclamation declaring Harvard an 'unsuitable destination' for foreign students, citing nebulous national-security concerns. It was a shot across the bow, signalling that visas could be wielded as a political weapon. Then came May 22. ICE revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, effectively threatening the legal status of roughly 5,500–6,000 international students overnight. The timing was surgical: Just as spring exams wrapped, thousands of students risked being forced to leave the country or transfer. Harvard's emergency lawsuit on May 23 pulled it back from the brink—Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later, halting the move. But the message was clear: Even the most prestigious university couldn't shield its students from the whims of political power when visas were used as leverage. For every prospective international student watching this unfold, the warning was unmistakable: In the US, your ability to study may hinge less on your merit than on whether your university angers the Oval Office or not. June–July 2025: Courtroom standoff and settlement signals By summer, the conflict had crystallised into two major lawsuits: One over the funding freeze, another over SEVP decertification. Both landed in Boston's federal court, with Harvard arguing that the administration's actions violated the First Amendment, Title VI protections, and due process laws. The Trump team countered that grant money was a privilege, not a right, and universities failing 'agency priorities' could have funding yanked at will. On July 21, oral arguments over the $2.2 billion freeze saw Judge Allison Burroughs grill both sides. A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the hearing laid bare the stakes: if Harvard loses, future presidents could dictate university policy through the purse strings, turning research funding into a political loyalty test. If Harvard wins, it would carve out a legal shield for academic freedom, albeit one forged in bitter litigation. Meanwhile, The New York Times revealed Harvard is exploring a potential settlement with the Trump administration, reportedly willing to pay up to $500 million to resolve the dispute. Negotiations reportedly focus on restoring access to more than $2 billion in frozen research funds while preserving governance autonomy, but the very premise of these talks is chilling. The figure is staggering, not just because of the money involved, but because of what it signals: Even the wealthiest and most powerful university in the country might have to 'pay tribute' to the White House to unlock funding it was already lawfully awarded. The talks mirror Columbia University's earlier $200 million settlement, but this is a higher‑stakes game. Harvard's endowment has become both shield and target, a financial bullseye for an administration eager to make an example of elite academia. Behind the headlines, DHS expanded its scrutiny to J-1 visas, research visas, and campus-linked foreign programs. Even without a final ruling, universities nationwide began quietly reviewing policies, fearing they'd be next. The chilling effect on student speech, faculty hiring, and international enrolment was immediate and measurable. Harvard's choice: Buy relief or win the law If Harvard settles, it risks sidelining the judiciary altogether, dodging the constitutional answer: Can a White House weaponise federal funding to police campus thought? The money tap may reopen, but the chance to set a legal boundary closes. The precedent becomes fear, telling every university president that when Washington knocks, resistance is futile and freedom negotiable. It transforms education into a marketplace where political compliance can be bought and dissent carries a billion-dollar price tag. If Harvard bows to this arrangement, it legitimises a dangerous precedent: Federal funding as ransom, with intellectual independence up for sale. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
